Tweet
The Armenian Weekly On-Line
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.ar menianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 73, No. 39; Sept. 29, 2007
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Did the Dink Investigation Go Far Enough?
Indictment Reveals New Details
By Stephen Kurkjian
2. What Would Lemkin Do?
By Khatchig Mouradian
3. In Pursuit of Effective Criticism
Thoughts on the Reaction to Mesrob Patriarch's Visit to the U.S.
By Shahan Kandaharian
4. Half Empty or Half Full? The Jurisdictional Bushwack
By Gregory H. Arabian
5. Letters to the Editor
***
1. Did the Dink Investigation Go Far Enough?
Indictment Reveals New Details
By Stephen Kurkjian
As those charged in the killing of martyred Armenian editor Hrant Dink enter
into a Turkish courtroom for the second time next week, the principal
question in the case remains whether the investigation went far enough to
uncover the extent of the conspiracy that led to the murder.
The three lead defendants, including the 17-year-old alleged gunman, Ogun
Samast, will hear what further evidence Turkish authorities have uncovered
against them in their investigation into the Jan. 19 murder.
In July at their initial court hearing, they pleaded not guilty to the
charges against them contained in the indictment.
Because that initial hearing was closed to reporters, since Samast is
considered a juvenile under Turkish criminal law, and the indictment was
never translated into English, the publicity given to the case, especially
in the Western press, has fallen off dramatically and attention to the
larger issue-that the case presents a test of Turkey's commitment to
democratic values-has waned, even in the Armenian diaspora.
While the immense international interest shown to the Dink case in the
immediate aftermath of his killing was inevitable, members of his family and
their lawyers worry that the lessening of interest that has taken place in
recent months will allow Turkish authorities to back off their pledges given
at the time for a thorough investigation as well as to institute democratic
reforms that had been promised following the murder.
"This case is a very important case that will demonstrate...what kind of a
country we want to live in. And this is exactly why it is essential to
inform the public and to get its support," said Fethiye Cetin, the lead
lawyer for the Dink family, in briefing the press in late June.
"As long as the trial process and the judging is determined and influenced
of them who have the power, one can not speak of the independence of those
processes and of those positions. It is not possible to achieve satisfactory
results and material truth if the independence of the judgment and the
judges is not ensured. Such a system cannot be called a democratic, secular,
social legal system."
One major disappointment has been the resistance of the government to
weaken, if not eliminate, the criminal section of the Turkish criminal code
which allows for prosecution of any statements of "anti-Turkishness." It was
the prosecution of Dink by the government on two perceived slurs, including
his assertion that Armenians risked poisoning their blood with "bitterness"
by solely concentrating on the need to the Armenian genocide recognized by
the Turkey, that allegedly spurred his killers to target him. Not only does
the law remain as part of the Turkish legal code, but it has been used to
prosecute Dink's 28-year-old son. Arat Dink, who now serves as executive
editor of his father's Agos newspaper, is fighting a complaint that was
filed against him for questioning the justness of Article 301 when it allows
for charging anyone who acknowledges publicly that the Armenian genocide
took place.
Arat's next court appearance in that case is scheduled in mid-October. But
he and other family members will be attending the second court session in
the trial against the three principal conspirators charged in the killing of
Hrant Dink on Oct. 1. All 18 defendants, who have been indicted for direct
or indirect involvement in the scheme to kill Dink, were given lawyers
during their initial court appearance in early July to assist in their
defenses, and now the prosecution will begin to present its evidence in the
case.
It will not be an uninterrupted trial. In Turkey, key cases like this one
involve a long, oft-delayed procedure and the trial is likely to take months
if not years to complete.
The most incriminating evidence in the case comes from the three principals
themselves. Following their arrests, the three-Samast; Yasin Hayal, 26, the
alleged mastermind who supplied the gun used to shoot Dink; and Erhan
Tuncel, also 26, a friend of Hayal's who shared his reactionary political
views but kept police in their hometown of Trabzon informed in part of the
plot to kill Dink, confessed their roles to police.
Their testimony is summarized in the six-page indictment, which was fully
translated into English for this article, and provides fresh details of
other attacks plotted by Hayal and Tuncel as well as the extensive and
repeated warnings, some complete and some incomplete, given to police that
Dink was in danger.
The indictment states that the relationship between Tuncel and Hayal dated
back to 2002 when the two met inside the youth group of the
ultra-nationalist political organization, Grand Union Party, and found they
shared a belief that Muslim countries worldwide were being treated unfairly.
During the next two years, "they talk about the Muslim countries problems
across the world and how unfair the Muslim countries have been treated,
especially in Chechnya. They believe that Russia has been torturing Chechen
people and do not let them live free. They think that being silent against
all these issues is not good. Something must be done in response to Russian
atrocity towards Chechnya."
Their first scheme, hatched in 2004, centered on sending Hayal to Chechnya
to fight against the Russians or Iraq to fight against the Americans. But
after abandoning those plans, they decided to strike against the United
States inside Turkey. At some point (the indictment does not provide a date)
Hayal attacked a priest who was serving at a Catholic church in Trabzon as a
protest against the missionary work being done by the church in the city. In
Oct. 2004, Hayal planted a homemade explosive at the front door of a
McDonald's restaurant in Trabzon to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Six
people were injured in the blast after which Hayal immediately fled to
Istanbul. However, one of his college professors convinced Tuncel to
cooperate with the police investigation and he secretly provided authorities
with Hayal's whereabouts in Istanbul, which led to Hayal's arrest.
Hayal served 11 months in prison but, unaware that his friend had secretly
implicated him in the bombing, following his release he took up again with
Tuncel in Sept. 2005, according to the indictment. Several months later, in
Jan. 2006, Tuncel reported to his police handlers that Hayal was now
plotting to assassinate Hrant Dink. According to the indictment, Tuncel
reported the plot a second time to his "handlers" in the Trabzon police
force in April 2006.
Fearing that as an ex-convict he would face an extremely long prison
sentence if he were caught, Hayal sought to minimize his role in the scheme
by getting someone else to actually kill Dink. He approached two men but the
first backed out after his brother sent him to work in another city. The
second, Coskun Igci, who was married to Hayal's aunt, was an informant for
Trabzon police and he reported Hayal's approach to his handlers in July
2006. They told Igci to play along with Hayal's scheme to carry out the
killing but assured that Dink would not be attacked. "He cannot do this, he
is always under our observation," the indictment states the intelligence
officers told Igci.
Frustrated by Igci's inability to secure a gun with the 300 Turkish lira he
had given him, Hayal approached Ogun Samast, a teenager whom he knew from
playing soccer together, sometime in Sept. 2006, and asked him if he would
be interested in killing Dink. "There is an Armenian journalist who insults
Turkish people and he must be killed," the indictment quotes Hayal as
telling Samast. At the time, Dink's prosecution by the government for
violation of Article 301 was receiving large attention in the Turkish media
and he was receiving constant death threats. "Ogun accepts killing Dink
without hesitation," the indictment states.
Over the next several months, Samast and Hayal met with Tuncel at Tuncel's
home to come up with a plan to carry out the killing. "Hayal and Tuncel tell
[Samast] that Hrant is a big Turkish enemy, if he kills him he will be a
hero. They also tell him that there may be surveillance cameras at the crime
scene so he must be careful with them and should cover his face in order not
to be recognized."
At one point, according to the indictment, Tuncel tells Samast that the man
he is about to attack is not an average individual, but instead that "Dink
is a very brave man. He is like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk for Armenians."
Prophetically, Dink's killing provoked one of the largest peaceful
demonstrations in modern Turkey as hundreds of thousands of individuals
protested his death by marching in a five-mile funeral procession and
demanding that the Turkish government introduce democratic reforms and
provide more protection to minorities in the country.
What Tuncel was telling his handlers inside the Trabzon police force about
Samast being hired to kill Dink is uncertain. The indictment states that
while Tuncel told his handlers twice in 2006 that Hayal was plotting an
attack against Dink, he told them that Hayal was going to the killing
himself, and never told them of Hayal's scheme to hire another person to do
the actual shooting. His secret meetings with the police took place in Feb.
and April 2006, according to the indictment.
However, the indictment also states that Tuncel was kept on as a police
informant until late Nov. 2006, and says nothing about any other information
he might have provided them. He was finally fired as a police informant
because he lied a lot and made up stories for the police to attain money.
The indictment makes no reference to Turkish newspaper articles that
reported shortly after Dink's death that Tuncel had told his police handlers
about the plot on more than a dozen occasions in 2006, and that at least
once the information had been turned over to police in Istanbul.
Fethiye Cetin, the Dink family's lead lawyer, says she is disturbed by the
inconsistencies contained in the indictment and questions whether the
official investigation that led to the charges was cut off to avoid
uncovering a deeper plot.
"The security forces who were on duty in Trabzon where the murder was
planned, in Istanbul, the place of the crime, and in Ankara, where all
intelligence information is gathered, have not been included in this
case...although their connections with the suspects, their abuse and breach
of duty, hiding criminal evidence and even acts of praising the crime and
the criminal have been documented," Cetin said shortly after the indictment
was issued. "This is one of the major flaws of the investigation."
Stephen Kurkjian, who retired as an investigative reporter with the Boston
Globe in April, traveled to Istanbul twice this year to report on Hrant Dink's
assassination and the investigation into the killing.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
1. What Would Lemkin Do?
By Khatchig Mouradian
When dealing with ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be useful to ask:
What would Lemkin do? Had world leaders and human rights organizations asked
that question and acted based on the answer over the past 50 years, several
mass murders and genocides could have been prevented or stopped in Europe,
Africa and Asia.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jew, coined the term "genocide" in 1944 based on
the planned extermination of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and
the Jews during WWII. He worked tirelessly to have the UN pass a law on the
prevention and punishment of that crime. Finally, on Dec. 9, 1948, the UN
General Assembly ratified the Genocide Convention. Remembering that moment,
Lemkin, who lost 49 relatives during the Holocaust, wrote: "Somebody
requested a roll call. The first to vote was India. After her 'yes' there
was an endless number of 'yeses.' A storm of applause followed. I felt on my
face the flashlight of cameras. . The world was smiling and approving and I
had only one word in answer to all that, 'thanks.'"
Lemkin referred to the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions. In an
article in the Hairenik Weekly on Jan. 1, 1959, he wrote that the suffering
of the Armenians had paved the way to the ratification of the Genocide
Convention: "The sufferings of the Armenian men, women, and children thrown
into the Euphrates River or massacred on the way to [the Syrian desert of]
Der-el-Zor have prepared the way for the adoption for the Genocide
Convention by the United Nations. . This is the reason why the Armenians of
the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention.
They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General
Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was
discussed."
At the end of the article, Lemkin asserted, "One million Armenians died, but
a law against the murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood
and the spirit of their sufferings."
Fast forward to 2007. The Anti-Defamation league (ADL), an organization that
has tirelessly spoken out and acted against Holocaust denial as well as more
recent acts of genocide from Eastern Europe to Darfur, continues to speak
with ambiguities about the Armenian genocide and oppose Congressional
legislation affirming the historical record, considering it
"counterproductive."
Days after the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, was confronted on
the issue, he wrote a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
"to express our sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and
people of Turkey in the past few days."
Countless Jewish organizations, scholars, journalists, bloggers and
activists have come out fiercely to criticize the ADL's hypocrisy. They have
all asked the right question-What would Lemkin do?-and have come up with the
right answer, thus honoring Lemkin's legacy.
Perhaps rather than rushing to appease the Turkish government, the ADL would
do well to ask the right question, too.
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----
3. Thoughts on the Reaction to Mesrob Patriarch's Visit to the U.S.
By Shahan Kandaharian
The real reason behind the cancellation of an appearance in Washington by
Istanbul's Armenian Patriarch is clearly beyond technical or logistical.
Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafyan's announcements or comments made during an
event or interview immediately attract attention and generate an outcry in
political and community circles.
Given the complexity and peculiarity of the Patriarch's situation, there
have been many different interpretations of his actions and words-from both
the Turkish and Armenian sides.
Anyone familiar with Armeno-Turkish relations will see the similarities
between the Patriarch's current trip to Washington and his tour of Europe
some time ago to promote Turkey's accession to the European Union. In those
days, too, Armenians were shocked at the Patriarch's actions.
And now, almost the same situation is being repeated. From a political point
of view, this more recent trip is neither surprising nor inconsistent. Let's
not forget that Turkey needs to show the world that it is respects the
rights of minorities. Even more so, Turkey needs a high-ranking
representative from its own Armenian community to highlight the reforms
being made in Turkey and, in contrast, the harm of resolutions recognizing
the genocide.
When analyzing the actions and words of the Patriarch, it is essential to
stay away from emotional outpourings, and to instead respond with political
maturity. In sending the Patriarch to the U.S., Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan aimed to influence American public opinion (and not
necessarily to create tension within the Armenian community). Still,
especially when it comes to the issue of the genocide, we must proceed with
tact and caution, avoiding a Turkish trap and even turning the tables on
Turkey.
Therefore, instead of criticizing Mesrob II, we should expose the true
colors of the Turkish government, which claims to be open-minded. We must
remember and remind others of the Patriarch's European trip-which came after
an order from the Turkish government-and of the statements he made, all of
which were rehearsed beforehand.
We must remind others of the "re-opening" of St. Akhtamar-without a cross,
and on a date that was changed three times after the initial April 24
date-and how in these cases the Patriarch took the stance of the Armenian
community, even though he was ordered by force to attend the church (or
museum) opening.
It was during those days that, during an interview he gave with a French
television station, the Patriarch said that at least in principle he
understood the efforts of diasporan Armenians to ensure genocide
recognition. He said this from the same Istanbul where Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code is in effect.
Thus, prudence and caution are needed, and our criticism should be addressed
to the mastermind behind the Patriarch's trips-the Turkish government-rather
than the Patriarch himself. We must also remember that the Armenian
population of Turkey voted for the Turkish government that has sent the
Patriarch to the U.S.
The stance and statements of any Armenian individual, be it a community
activist, journalist or religious leader, should be viewed within the
context of Turkey's political situation and assessed by the facts on the
ground. This approach will keep us from adopting a sensationalist view of
the situation, and will help us to correctly react to the challenge.
Shahan Kandaharian is the editor in chief of the Aztag Daily, published in
Lebanon.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
4. Half Empty or Half Full? The Jurisdictional Bushwack
By Gregory H. Arabian
On Sept. 17, Belmont Selectmen were asked to adopt the Belmont Human Rights
Commission's (HRC) unanimous recommendation to sever ties with the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and its No Place for Hate Program (NPFH).
The Belmont HRC also recommended that the Selectmen call upon the ADL to
formally recognize the Armenian genocide by supporting a non-binding
resolution not requiring the signature of the President of the United
States.
That resolution, now pending in Congress, is House and Senate Resolution 106
(H.Res.106 / S.Res.106), now supported by over 220 Congressmen and 30
Senators.
The ADL, whose goals are to oppose the crimes of hate and discrimination,
now enters the political arena as a Turkophile.
The National ADL opposes passage of these resolutions while preaching
tolerance and opposition to hate crimes. It has supported denial of the
genocide the same as their Turkish masters have suggested, and openly
opposes passage of House and Senate Resolution 106.
A full and complete presentation of the facts by Armenians from Belmont and
the surrounding communities resulted in the unanimous passage of the Belmont
HRC recommendation.
However, unanimous passage was not the intent of the Belmont Selectmen, who
prevented further discussion, debate or explanation of the issue.
The Selectmen turned the audience into nothing more than muzzled spectators
with few exceptions.
The apparent lack of knowledge by most of the Selectmen was limited to
materials they had read in less than two weeks. This added to the
frustration at the meeting.
The only bright spot and exception to this was an eloquent, riveting and
point-by-point delivery made by Selectman Paul Solomon, who proved to be the
lone supporter of the Belmont HRC's unanimous recommendation.
Newly elected Selectman Dan LeClerc spearheaded the opposition to the HRC's
recommendation on two grounds: first, on the "jurisdictional" ground that
the Town of Belmont had no business conditioning its recommendation on the
passage of a Congressional House Resolution; secondly, he asked, and I
paraphrase, "Who are we to force the ADL into a corner, specifically telling
them that their continued existence in Belmont depends upon their open
support, nationally, for House and Senate Resolution 106 now pending in
Congress?"
Selectman Angelo Firenze joined him in this sentiment.
Faced with what appeared to be a vote against the HRC's recommendation,
close to 200 Belmont Armenians packing the Belmont Town Hall Auditorium
erupted in justified outrage.
They could not explain the shortcomings of the Selectmen's assumptions
because they were not allowed to speak.
Being deeply concerned about this situation, attendees simply voiced their
opposition and outrage. They were met by Selectman Firenze's announcement
that he would adjourn the proceeding or reschedule the proceeding at some
future date. This raised further outcry until Dr. Joyce Barsam masterfully
took the microphone and calmed the audience. It was suggested that it might
be possible to "split" the recommendation into two parts and vote on each
separately.
The result? The first motion-to sever ties with the ADL and its No Place for
Hate Program-passed unanimously.
The second motion-asking the ADL to support HR106 as a condition for
reinstatement -was defeated.
The ultimate judgment, then, is that the glass is full-but only half full.
Belmont has severed ties with the ADL and the NPFH; yet, if the ADL should
wish to continue its operations in Belmont at some future time, another
hearing would have to be held, and the request examined.
Those who consider the glass as half empty base their judgment on the
Selectmen's refusal to specify the conditions that would allow the ADL to
return to its normal operations. This not only sidesteps the issue, but it
puts final judgment off to some other time in the future "when the heat is
off."
A statement, an unsigned fax from the ADL New England Region that was sent
at the last minute prior to the hearing and read without corroboration or
authentication, bushwacked the hearing. It stated in writing that they
recognized the Armenian genocide as a genocide and will continue to do so.
It will be up to Armenians in every "jurisdiction" to hold their feet to the
fire and expose this statement to the National ADL, which has yet to take
the same approach.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------
5. Letters to the Editor
Are You Against Reconciliation?
Dear Editor,
After several re-readings and sponging up the bile that helped contribute to
the lack of clarity of what passes for the thoughts of Tatul
Sonentz-Papazian in his mini-tirade against the Armenian Assembly and its
announcement about the Genocide Museum (Sept. 15), I am impelled to comment.
He seems to suggest that an Armenian Genocide Museum in Washington, D.C. is
a bad thing: ".sudden recovery of the moribund planning stage of
the.museum."; ".spending sorely needed funds to convert a defunct American
temple of commerce into a mausoleum for a continuing genocide still waiting
for a closure, presently opposed and denied by the very landlords of that
temple." (The "landlords," by the way, are Armenians!)
He seems to suggest that there is something wicked about the fact that
Hirair Hovnanian is supporting the project: ".the promise of healthy doses
of.financial injections by.Hirair Hovnanian."
He seems it obligatory to continue to throw stones at the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), as if TARC's aims and intentions were
somehow dishonorable: ".the former intrepid champion of the late unlamented
TARC.Van Krikorian, Esq." (As an aside, the "R" stands for "reconciliation."
Do I assume that Sonentz-Papazian is against any reconciliation between
Armenia and Turkey? Or, as truth would probably have it, is he saying "TARC
was no good because I wasn't on it"?)
He seems to find fault with Krikorian's statement that "I am delighted
[that] all of our friends are resolved to build this center in our nation's
capital" as if there is something wrong with the idea that there should be
such a Museum. (Krikorian's use of the word "opponents" was referring to the
Turks and their apologists. Is Sonentz-Papazian now allying himself with the
Turks and their apologists?)
And, he reserves his special dose of bile for Krikorian's statement about
the "special emphasis on the role of the United States in genocide
prevention and punishment." There is nothing in Krikorian's statement that
says, "And, we will pour gallons of praise on the noble role of America."
Perhaps Krikorian had in mind that any statement might lament America's sad
role in non-recognition of all genocides and its equally sad role in
non-punishment of the evil-doers. After all, unless Sonentz-Papazian knows
otherwise, it is unlikely that the U.S. government will contribute any money
to the fundraising campaign.
Finally, Sonentz-Papazian makes an almost unbelievable statement suggesting
that a Genocide Museum ("this ill-timed project") is taking funds needed to
resolve "the somber state of affairs presently emerging both in the
Homeland-Armenia, Artsakh, Javakhk and Wilsonian Armenia, with its long
neglected Armenian populations-and the scattered communities of the
diaspora, beset by urgent problems and neglected needs that require
attention and serious infusion of moral and material support"-whatever in
Hell's name that means.
If Sonentz-Papazian had really wanted to render a service, he should have
dipped his pen into his venom-filled inkwell and asked why the Museum
Project has languished for so long as an idea, and why the Armenians had not
over-subscribed the project five minutes after it was announced.
Instead of commending "The Committee, Hirair Hovnanian, Anoush Mathevosian,
the Armenian Assembly of America, and all of our friends," for putting their
money where their mouths are (to use a crude expression), Sonentz-Papazian
feels, apparently, that they should pour that money down the bottomless pit
of corruption that is the trademark of the crooks and thieves in Yerevan.
There are more than enough wealthy Armenians in this country to fund the
Museum out of petty cash, but that would mean that they-and not our
Martyrs-would have to be honored and remembered.
It would appear that in Sonentz-Papazian's narrow view of the world, there
is no room for supporting the drive to create and sustain a much-needed
Genocide Museum in the nation's capital, dedicated to those who died at the
hands of the Ottoman Turks, and also for supporting those other causes for
which he sheds tears.
That view says more about him and his friends than it says about the rest of
us. That is, unless he is saying that he is against a Genocide Museum
because he won't be running it.
There is more-much more-that could be said, but it is unlikely that you can
spare the space for a longer rebuttal, if indeed even this is accepted and
used.
Andrew Kevorkian,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Tatul Sonentz-Papazian Responds
Although I have not had the pleasure of ever meeting or having been
introduced to Mr. Kevorkian, I would like to think-for his sake-that his
letter, full of disturbingly hackneyed allusions to "bile" and "venom-filled
ink-wells," does not in any way reflect on his general state of mind.
I am sorry to hear that it took Mr. Kevorkian "several re-readings" of my
"mini tirade" to grasp its meaning. Therefore, not to tax Mr. Kevorkian's
attention span, I shall keep this response even shorter than "mini."
My comments, which seem to have hit a sensitive cord in Mr. Kevorkian's
psyche, were about priorities: I do not think that at this juncture of
Armenian history-while the genocide that started long before 1915 against
the Armenian people continues through denial, destruction of monuments,
forced conversions to Islam, etc.-our nation should expend its energy on
projects better realized after the ongoing genocidal process ends and final
closure is achieved.
As to the roles played by Mr. Krikorian et al. in the ill-conceived venture
called TARC, my opinion and criticism was shared by an undisputed majority
of concerned Armenians in the diaspora and those in our Homeland, whose
capital city, Yerevan, is described by Mr. Kevorkian as ".the bottomless pit
of corruption that is the trademark of the crooks and thieves."
One feels compelled to put this question to Mr. Krikorian and those who use
him as a mouthpiece: How does that "corruption" compare with that of
present-day Washington, D.C.?
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.ar menianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 73, No. 39; Sept. 29, 2007
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Did the Dink Investigation Go Far Enough?
Indictment Reveals New Details
By Stephen Kurkjian
2. What Would Lemkin Do?
By Khatchig Mouradian
3. In Pursuit of Effective Criticism
Thoughts on the Reaction to Mesrob Patriarch's Visit to the U.S.
By Shahan Kandaharian
4. Half Empty or Half Full? The Jurisdictional Bushwack
By Gregory H. Arabian
5. Letters to the Editor
***
1. Did the Dink Investigation Go Far Enough?
Indictment Reveals New Details
By Stephen Kurkjian
As those charged in the killing of martyred Armenian editor Hrant Dink enter
into a Turkish courtroom for the second time next week, the principal
question in the case remains whether the investigation went far enough to
uncover the extent of the conspiracy that led to the murder.
The three lead defendants, including the 17-year-old alleged gunman, Ogun
Samast, will hear what further evidence Turkish authorities have uncovered
against them in their investigation into the Jan. 19 murder.
In July at their initial court hearing, they pleaded not guilty to the
charges against them contained in the indictment.
Because that initial hearing was closed to reporters, since Samast is
considered a juvenile under Turkish criminal law, and the indictment was
never translated into English, the publicity given to the case, especially
in the Western press, has fallen off dramatically and attention to the
larger issue-that the case presents a test of Turkey's commitment to
democratic values-has waned, even in the Armenian diaspora.
While the immense international interest shown to the Dink case in the
immediate aftermath of his killing was inevitable, members of his family and
their lawyers worry that the lessening of interest that has taken place in
recent months will allow Turkish authorities to back off their pledges given
at the time for a thorough investigation as well as to institute democratic
reforms that had been promised following the murder.
"This case is a very important case that will demonstrate...what kind of a
country we want to live in. And this is exactly why it is essential to
inform the public and to get its support," said Fethiye Cetin, the lead
lawyer for the Dink family, in briefing the press in late June.
"As long as the trial process and the judging is determined and influenced
of them who have the power, one can not speak of the independence of those
processes and of those positions. It is not possible to achieve satisfactory
results and material truth if the independence of the judgment and the
judges is not ensured. Such a system cannot be called a democratic, secular,
social legal system."
One major disappointment has been the resistance of the government to
weaken, if not eliminate, the criminal section of the Turkish criminal code
which allows for prosecution of any statements of "anti-Turkishness." It was
the prosecution of Dink by the government on two perceived slurs, including
his assertion that Armenians risked poisoning their blood with "bitterness"
by solely concentrating on the need to the Armenian genocide recognized by
the Turkey, that allegedly spurred his killers to target him. Not only does
the law remain as part of the Turkish legal code, but it has been used to
prosecute Dink's 28-year-old son. Arat Dink, who now serves as executive
editor of his father's Agos newspaper, is fighting a complaint that was
filed against him for questioning the justness of Article 301 when it allows
for charging anyone who acknowledges publicly that the Armenian genocide
took place.
Arat's next court appearance in that case is scheduled in mid-October. But
he and other family members will be attending the second court session in
the trial against the three principal conspirators charged in the killing of
Hrant Dink on Oct. 1. All 18 defendants, who have been indicted for direct
or indirect involvement in the scheme to kill Dink, were given lawyers
during their initial court appearance in early July to assist in their
defenses, and now the prosecution will begin to present its evidence in the
case.
It will not be an uninterrupted trial. In Turkey, key cases like this one
involve a long, oft-delayed procedure and the trial is likely to take months
if not years to complete.
The most incriminating evidence in the case comes from the three principals
themselves. Following their arrests, the three-Samast; Yasin Hayal, 26, the
alleged mastermind who supplied the gun used to shoot Dink; and Erhan
Tuncel, also 26, a friend of Hayal's who shared his reactionary political
views but kept police in their hometown of Trabzon informed in part of the
plot to kill Dink, confessed their roles to police.
Their testimony is summarized in the six-page indictment, which was fully
translated into English for this article, and provides fresh details of
other attacks plotted by Hayal and Tuncel as well as the extensive and
repeated warnings, some complete and some incomplete, given to police that
Dink was in danger.
The indictment states that the relationship between Tuncel and Hayal dated
back to 2002 when the two met inside the youth group of the
ultra-nationalist political organization, Grand Union Party, and found they
shared a belief that Muslim countries worldwide were being treated unfairly.
During the next two years, "they talk about the Muslim countries problems
across the world and how unfair the Muslim countries have been treated,
especially in Chechnya. They believe that Russia has been torturing Chechen
people and do not let them live free. They think that being silent against
all these issues is not good. Something must be done in response to Russian
atrocity towards Chechnya."
Their first scheme, hatched in 2004, centered on sending Hayal to Chechnya
to fight against the Russians or Iraq to fight against the Americans. But
after abandoning those plans, they decided to strike against the United
States inside Turkey. At some point (the indictment does not provide a date)
Hayal attacked a priest who was serving at a Catholic church in Trabzon as a
protest against the missionary work being done by the church in the city. In
Oct. 2004, Hayal planted a homemade explosive at the front door of a
McDonald's restaurant in Trabzon to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Six
people were injured in the blast after which Hayal immediately fled to
Istanbul. However, one of his college professors convinced Tuncel to
cooperate with the police investigation and he secretly provided authorities
with Hayal's whereabouts in Istanbul, which led to Hayal's arrest.
Hayal served 11 months in prison but, unaware that his friend had secretly
implicated him in the bombing, following his release he took up again with
Tuncel in Sept. 2005, according to the indictment. Several months later, in
Jan. 2006, Tuncel reported to his police handlers that Hayal was now
plotting to assassinate Hrant Dink. According to the indictment, Tuncel
reported the plot a second time to his "handlers" in the Trabzon police
force in April 2006.
Fearing that as an ex-convict he would face an extremely long prison
sentence if he were caught, Hayal sought to minimize his role in the scheme
by getting someone else to actually kill Dink. He approached two men but the
first backed out after his brother sent him to work in another city. The
second, Coskun Igci, who was married to Hayal's aunt, was an informant for
Trabzon police and he reported Hayal's approach to his handlers in July
2006. They told Igci to play along with Hayal's scheme to carry out the
killing but assured that Dink would not be attacked. "He cannot do this, he
is always under our observation," the indictment states the intelligence
officers told Igci.
Frustrated by Igci's inability to secure a gun with the 300 Turkish lira he
had given him, Hayal approached Ogun Samast, a teenager whom he knew from
playing soccer together, sometime in Sept. 2006, and asked him if he would
be interested in killing Dink. "There is an Armenian journalist who insults
Turkish people and he must be killed," the indictment quotes Hayal as
telling Samast. At the time, Dink's prosecution by the government for
violation of Article 301 was receiving large attention in the Turkish media
and he was receiving constant death threats. "Ogun accepts killing Dink
without hesitation," the indictment states.
Over the next several months, Samast and Hayal met with Tuncel at Tuncel's
home to come up with a plan to carry out the killing. "Hayal and Tuncel tell
[Samast] that Hrant is a big Turkish enemy, if he kills him he will be a
hero. They also tell him that there may be surveillance cameras at the crime
scene so he must be careful with them and should cover his face in order not
to be recognized."
At one point, according to the indictment, Tuncel tells Samast that the man
he is about to attack is not an average individual, but instead that "Dink
is a very brave man. He is like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk for Armenians."
Prophetically, Dink's killing provoked one of the largest peaceful
demonstrations in modern Turkey as hundreds of thousands of individuals
protested his death by marching in a five-mile funeral procession and
demanding that the Turkish government introduce democratic reforms and
provide more protection to minorities in the country.
What Tuncel was telling his handlers inside the Trabzon police force about
Samast being hired to kill Dink is uncertain. The indictment states that
while Tuncel told his handlers twice in 2006 that Hayal was plotting an
attack against Dink, he told them that Hayal was going to the killing
himself, and never told them of Hayal's scheme to hire another person to do
the actual shooting. His secret meetings with the police took place in Feb.
and April 2006, according to the indictment.
However, the indictment also states that Tuncel was kept on as a police
informant until late Nov. 2006, and says nothing about any other information
he might have provided them. He was finally fired as a police informant
because he lied a lot and made up stories for the police to attain money.
The indictment makes no reference to Turkish newspaper articles that
reported shortly after Dink's death that Tuncel had told his police handlers
about the plot on more than a dozen occasions in 2006, and that at least
once the information had been turned over to police in Istanbul.
Fethiye Cetin, the Dink family's lead lawyer, says she is disturbed by the
inconsistencies contained in the indictment and questions whether the
official investigation that led to the charges was cut off to avoid
uncovering a deeper plot.
"The security forces who were on duty in Trabzon where the murder was
planned, in Istanbul, the place of the crime, and in Ankara, where all
intelligence information is gathered, have not been included in this
case...although their connections with the suspects, their abuse and breach
of duty, hiding criminal evidence and even acts of praising the crime and
the criminal have been documented," Cetin said shortly after the indictment
was issued. "This is one of the major flaws of the investigation."
Stephen Kurkjian, who retired as an investigative reporter with the Boston
Globe in April, traveled to Istanbul twice this year to report on Hrant Dink's
assassination and the investigation into the killing.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
1. What Would Lemkin Do?
By Khatchig Mouradian
When dealing with ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be useful to ask:
What would Lemkin do? Had world leaders and human rights organizations asked
that question and acted based on the answer over the past 50 years, several
mass murders and genocides could have been prevented or stopped in Europe,
Africa and Asia.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jew, coined the term "genocide" in 1944 based on
the planned extermination of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and
the Jews during WWII. He worked tirelessly to have the UN pass a law on the
prevention and punishment of that crime. Finally, on Dec. 9, 1948, the UN
General Assembly ratified the Genocide Convention. Remembering that moment,
Lemkin, who lost 49 relatives during the Holocaust, wrote: "Somebody
requested a roll call. The first to vote was India. After her 'yes' there
was an endless number of 'yeses.' A storm of applause followed. I felt on my
face the flashlight of cameras. . The world was smiling and approving and I
had only one word in answer to all that, 'thanks.'"
Lemkin referred to the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions. In an
article in the Hairenik Weekly on Jan. 1, 1959, he wrote that the suffering
of the Armenians had paved the way to the ratification of the Genocide
Convention: "The sufferings of the Armenian men, women, and children thrown
into the Euphrates River or massacred on the way to [the Syrian desert of]
Der-el-Zor have prepared the way for the adoption for the Genocide
Convention by the United Nations. . This is the reason why the Armenians of
the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention.
They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General
Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was
discussed."
At the end of the article, Lemkin asserted, "One million Armenians died, but
a law against the murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood
and the spirit of their sufferings."
Fast forward to 2007. The Anti-Defamation league (ADL), an organization that
has tirelessly spoken out and acted against Holocaust denial as well as more
recent acts of genocide from Eastern Europe to Darfur, continues to speak
with ambiguities about the Armenian genocide and oppose Congressional
legislation affirming the historical record, considering it
"counterproductive."
Days after the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, was confronted on
the issue, he wrote a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
"to express our sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and
people of Turkey in the past few days."
Countless Jewish organizations, scholars, journalists, bloggers and
activists have come out fiercely to criticize the ADL's hypocrisy. They have
all asked the right question-What would Lemkin do?-and have come up with the
right answer, thus honoring Lemkin's legacy.
Perhaps rather than rushing to appease the Turkish government, the ADL would
do well to ask the right question, too.
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----
3. Thoughts on the Reaction to Mesrob Patriarch's Visit to the U.S.
By Shahan Kandaharian
The real reason behind the cancellation of an appearance in Washington by
Istanbul's Armenian Patriarch is clearly beyond technical or logistical.
Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafyan's announcements or comments made during an
event or interview immediately attract attention and generate an outcry in
political and community circles.
Given the complexity and peculiarity of the Patriarch's situation, there
have been many different interpretations of his actions and words-from both
the Turkish and Armenian sides.
Anyone familiar with Armeno-Turkish relations will see the similarities
between the Patriarch's current trip to Washington and his tour of Europe
some time ago to promote Turkey's accession to the European Union. In those
days, too, Armenians were shocked at the Patriarch's actions.
And now, almost the same situation is being repeated. From a political point
of view, this more recent trip is neither surprising nor inconsistent. Let's
not forget that Turkey needs to show the world that it is respects the
rights of minorities. Even more so, Turkey needs a high-ranking
representative from its own Armenian community to highlight the reforms
being made in Turkey and, in contrast, the harm of resolutions recognizing
the genocide.
When analyzing the actions and words of the Patriarch, it is essential to
stay away from emotional outpourings, and to instead respond with political
maturity. In sending the Patriarch to the U.S., Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan aimed to influence American public opinion (and not
necessarily to create tension within the Armenian community). Still,
especially when it comes to the issue of the genocide, we must proceed with
tact and caution, avoiding a Turkish trap and even turning the tables on
Turkey.
Therefore, instead of criticizing Mesrob II, we should expose the true
colors of the Turkish government, which claims to be open-minded. We must
remember and remind others of the Patriarch's European trip-which came after
an order from the Turkish government-and of the statements he made, all of
which were rehearsed beforehand.
We must remind others of the "re-opening" of St. Akhtamar-without a cross,
and on a date that was changed three times after the initial April 24
date-and how in these cases the Patriarch took the stance of the Armenian
community, even though he was ordered by force to attend the church (or
museum) opening.
It was during those days that, during an interview he gave with a French
television station, the Patriarch said that at least in principle he
understood the efforts of diasporan Armenians to ensure genocide
recognition. He said this from the same Istanbul where Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code is in effect.
Thus, prudence and caution are needed, and our criticism should be addressed
to the mastermind behind the Patriarch's trips-the Turkish government-rather
than the Patriarch himself. We must also remember that the Armenian
population of Turkey voted for the Turkish government that has sent the
Patriarch to the U.S.
The stance and statements of any Armenian individual, be it a community
activist, journalist or religious leader, should be viewed within the
context of Turkey's political situation and assessed by the facts on the
ground. This approach will keep us from adopting a sensationalist view of
the situation, and will help us to correctly react to the challenge.
Shahan Kandaharian is the editor in chief of the Aztag Daily, published in
Lebanon.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
4. Half Empty or Half Full? The Jurisdictional Bushwack
By Gregory H. Arabian
On Sept. 17, Belmont Selectmen were asked to adopt the Belmont Human Rights
Commission's (HRC) unanimous recommendation to sever ties with the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and its No Place for Hate Program (NPFH).
The Belmont HRC also recommended that the Selectmen call upon the ADL to
formally recognize the Armenian genocide by supporting a non-binding
resolution not requiring the signature of the President of the United
States.
That resolution, now pending in Congress, is House and Senate Resolution 106
(H.Res.106 / S.Res.106), now supported by over 220 Congressmen and 30
Senators.
The ADL, whose goals are to oppose the crimes of hate and discrimination,
now enters the political arena as a Turkophile.
The National ADL opposes passage of these resolutions while preaching
tolerance and opposition to hate crimes. It has supported denial of the
genocide the same as their Turkish masters have suggested, and openly
opposes passage of House and Senate Resolution 106.
A full and complete presentation of the facts by Armenians from Belmont and
the surrounding communities resulted in the unanimous passage of the Belmont
HRC recommendation.
However, unanimous passage was not the intent of the Belmont Selectmen, who
prevented further discussion, debate or explanation of the issue.
The Selectmen turned the audience into nothing more than muzzled spectators
with few exceptions.
The apparent lack of knowledge by most of the Selectmen was limited to
materials they had read in less than two weeks. This added to the
frustration at the meeting.
The only bright spot and exception to this was an eloquent, riveting and
point-by-point delivery made by Selectman Paul Solomon, who proved to be the
lone supporter of the Belmont HRC's unanimous recommendation.
Newly elected Selectman Dan LeClerc spearheaded the opposition to the HRC's
recommendation on two grounds: first, on the "jurisdictional" ground that
the Town of Belmont had no business conditioning its recommendation on the
passage of a Congressional House Resolution; secondly, he asked, and I
paraphrase, "Who are we to force the ADL into a corner, specifically telling
them that their continued existence in Belmont depends upon their open
support, nationally, for House and Senate Resolution 106 now pending in
Congress?"
Selectman Angelo Firenze joined him in this sentiment.
Faced with what appeared to be a vote against the HRC's recommendation,
close to 200 Belmont Armenians packing the Belmont Town Hall Auditorium
erupted in justified outrage.
They could not explain the shortcomings of the Selectmen's assumptions
because they were not allowed to speak.
Being deeply concerned about this situation, attendees simply voiced their
opposition and outrage. They were met by Selectman Firenze's announcement
that he would adjourn the proceeding or reschedule the proceeding at some
future date. This raised further outcry until Dr. Joyce Barsam masterfully
took the microphone and calmed the audience. It was suggested that it might
be possible to "split" the recommendation into two parts and vote on each
separately.
The result? The first motion-to sever ties with the ADL and its No Place for
Hate Program-passed unanimously.
The second motion-asking the ADL to support HR106 as a condition for
reinstatement -was defeated.
The ultimate judgment, then, is that the glass is full-but only half full.
Belmont has severed ties with the ADL and the NPFH; yet, if the ADL should
wish to continue its operations in Belmont at some future time, another
hearing would have to be held, and the request examined.
Those who consider the glass as half empty base their judgment on the
Selectmen's refusal to specify the conditions that would allow the ADL to
return to its normal operations. This not only sidesteps the issue, but it
puts final judgment off to some other time in the future "when the heat is
off."
A statement, an unsigned fax from the ADL New England Region that was sent
at the last minute prior to the hearing and read without corroboration or
authentication, bushwacked the hearing. It stated in writing that they
recognized the Armenian genocide as a genocide and will continue to do so.
It will be up to Armenians in every "jurisdiction" to hold their feet to the
fire and expose this statement to the National ADL, which has yet to take
the same approach.
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------
5. Letters to the Editor
Are You Against Reconciliation?
Dear Editor,
After several re-readings and sponging up the bile that helped contribute to
the lack of clarity of what passes for the thoughts of Tatul
Sonentz-Papazian in his mini-tirade against the Armenian Assembly and its
announcement about the Genocide Museum (Sept. 15), I am impelled to comment.
He seems to suggest that an Armenian Genocide Museum in Washington, D.C. is
a bad thing: ".sudden recovery of the moribund planning stage of
the.museum."; ".spending sorely needed funds to convert a defunct American
temple of commerce into a mausoleum for a continuing genocide still waiting
for a closure, presently opposed and denied by the very landlords of that
temple." (The "landlords," by the way, are Armenians!)
He seems to suggest that there is something wicked about the fact that
Hirair Hovnanian is supporting the project: ".the promise of healthy doses
of.financial injections by.Hirair Hovnanian."
He seems it obligatory to continue to throw stones at the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), as if TARC's aims and intentions were
somehow dishonorable: ".the former intrepid champion of the late unlamented
TARC.Van Krikorian, Esq." (As an aside, the "R" stands for "reconciliation."
Do I assume that Sonentz-Papazian is against any reconciliation between
Armenia and Turkey? Or, as truth would probably have it, is he saying "TARC
was no good because I wasn't on it"?)
He seems to find fault with Krikorian's statement that "I am delighted
[that] all of our friends are resolved to build this center in our nation's
capital" as if there is something wrong with the idea that there should be
such a Museum. (Krikorian's use of the word "opponents" was referring to the
Turks and their apologists. Is Sonentz-Papazian now allying himself with the
Turks and their apologists?)
And, he reserves his special dose of bile for Krikorian's statement about
the "special emphasis on the role of the United States in genocide
prevention and punishment." There is nothing in Krikorian's statement that
says, "And, we will pour gallons of praise on the noble role of America."
Perhaps Krikorian had in mind that any statement might lament America's sad
role in non-recognition of all genocides and its equally sad role in
non-punishment of the evil-doers. After all, unless Sonentz-Papazian knows
otherwise, it is unlikely that the U.S. government will contribute any money
to the fundraising campaign.
Finally, Sonentz-Papazian makes an almost unbelievable statement suggesting
that a Genocide Museum ("this ill-timed project") is taking funds needed to
resolve "the somber state of affairs presently emerging both in the
Homeland-Armenia, Artsakh, Javakhk and Wilsonian Armenia, with its long
neglected Armenian populations-and the scattered communities of the
diaspora, beset by urgent problems and neglected needs that require
attention and serious infusion of moral and material support"-whatever in
Hell's name that means.
If Sonentz-Papazian had really wanted to render a service, he should have
dipped his pen into his venom-filled inkwell and asked why the Museum
Project has languished for so long as an idea, and why the Armenians had not
over-subscribed the project five minutes after it was announced.
Instead of commending "The Committee, Hirair Hovnanian, Anoush Mathevosian,
the Armenian Assembly of America, and all of our friends," for putting their
money where their mouths are (to use a crude expression), Sonentz-Papazian
feels, apparently, that they should pour that money down the bottomless pit
of corruption that is the trademark of the crooks and thieves in Yerevan.
There are more than enough wealthy Armenians in this country to fund the
Museum out of petty cash, but that would mean that they-and not our
Martyrs-would have to be honored and remembered.
It would appear that in Sonentz-Papazian's narrow view of the world, there
is no room for supporting the drive to create and sustain a much-needed
Genocide Museum in the nation's capital, dedicated to those who died at the
hands of the Ottoman Turks, and also for supporting those other causes for
which he sheds tears.
That view says more about him and his friends than it says about the rest of
us. That is, unless he is saying that he is against a Genocide Museum
because he won't be running it.
There is more-much more-that could be said, but it is unlikely that you can
spare the space for a longer rebuttal, if indeed even this is accepted and
used.
Andrew Kevorkian,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Tatul Sonentz-Papazian Responds
Although I have not had the pleasure of ever meeting or having been
introduced to Mr. Kevorkian, I would like to think-for his sake-that his
letter, full of disturbingly hackneyed allusions to "bile" and "venom-filled
ink-wells," does not in any way reflect on his general state of mind.
I am sorry to hear that it took Mr. Kevorkian "several re-readings" of my
"mini tirade" to grasp its meaning. Therefore, not to tax Mr. Kevorkian's
attention span, I shall keep this response even shorter than "mini."
My comments, which seem to have hit a sensitive cord in Mr. Kevorkian's
psyche, were about priorities: I do not think that at this juncture of
Armenian history-while the genocide that started long before 1915 against
the Armenian people continues through denial, destruction of monuments,
forced conversions to Islam, etc.-our nation should expend its energy on
projects better realized after the ongoing genocidal process ends and final
closure is achieved.
As to the roles played by Mr. Krikorian et al. in the ill-conceived venture
called TARC, my opinion and criticism was shared by an undisputed majority
of concerned Armenians in the diaspora and those in our Homeland, whose
capital city, Yerevan, is described by Mr. Kevorkian as ".the bottomless pit
of corruption that is the trademark of the crooks and thieves."
One feels compelled to put this question to Mr. Krikorian and those who use
him as a mouthpiece: How does that "corruption" compare with that of
present-day Washington, D.C.?